Abstract or Introduction Literature on the concept of mentoring in general and technology mentoring specifically indicated that studies have

investigated mentoring relationships in different settings and reported benefits for the less experienced mentoring partner. However, existing literature was limited in providing insights about mentoring from the more experienced partner's point of view. But, to establish sustainable and beneficial mentoring relationships, studies suggested that understanding mentor's reactions to the experience is necessary

For that reason, the main purpose of this study was to examine a faculty technology mentoring program at a Midwestern university from the perspective of graduate students' who served as mentors. Based on the social learning theory framework, data were analyzed within the grounded theory research methodology

Findings revealed that the mentoring experience was also beneficial to mentors in several ways (technical, pedagogical, academic, and professional). According to results, mentors' benefits were not limited to the observable or to the ones that were more practical in a short time, such as learning new technical skills; instead, benefits extended to the unobservable and occurred over a longer time period (i.e., professional benefits)

In addition to identifying benefits to mentors, several other aspects of mentoring relationships were also investigated: understanding mentors' thoughts about characteristics of successful technology mentoring; issues in mentoring relationships; and whether or not mentors' lived mentoring experiences indicated successful mentoring relationships within their definition of an ideal mentoring relationship Some of the earlier definitions considered the relative ages of mentor and mentee as an element in mentoring relationships, while today the level of expertise and experience of the participating individuals has emerged as the major criteria in recent publications (Clutterbuck 1992; Foster, 2001; Jacobi, 1991). In their elaborated definition, Klasen and Clutterbuck (2002) described mentoring as a process by which a mentor encourages and supports another individual, the mentee, in management of his or her own learning so that the mentee eventually becomes self-reliant in the acquisition of new knowledge, skills, and abilities, and develops a continuous motivation to do so (p. 16). In spite of the fact that most of the publications in mentoring-related literature use the term mentor for the experienced person involved in the relationship, no common consensus exists about the term for the younger or less experienced person (Learner, Student, Mentoree, mentee, protg, etc). The most commonly used terms in these publications are mentee (Campbell & Campbell, 1997; Smith, 2000), protg (Beyene, Anglin, Sanchez, & Ballou, 2002; Hansman, 2001; Myers & Humphreys, 1985), and, in one case, learner (Gibb, 1999). Although some authors have not seen any problem using these terms interchangeably (Long, 2002), Klasen and Clutterbuck (2002) argued that differences between terms (mentee, protg) differentiate them from each other based on two points of view: (1) the powers of each participant that they may bring into the relationship and (2) the role of a person who receives the mentoring and his or her contribution to the more experienced persons development. According to these authors, despite the more neutral implication of the term, mentee, protg sounds as if the person receiving mentoring is somewhat more protected and suggests an unequal power distribution between the two participants. Thus, in their discussions, authors sometimes concluded that participating individuals should have equal power to bring about a mentoring relationship. Additionally, any inequality of power between the participants could be problematic for a successful mentoring relationship. Therefore, any inequality should be put aside. The second argument against use of the term protg is that it seems to imply that the person being mentored has little or no knowledge on the subject and, thus, has little to contribute to the mentoring relationship. However, Klasen and Clutterbuck (2002) have pointed out that a less-knowledgeable or less- experienced person being mentored may not be able to contribute significantly to his or her own learning, but a mentor, as the experienced person, may be able to learn a lot from the mentee. Based on the literature on this subject and the principles of social learning theory, the term mentee seemed more appropriate to describe the role the less-experienced person within the concept of mentoring as we commonly think of it today. Details of the theoretical framework given in the following sections will further illuminate our position on this decision. Development of Mentoring in Different Settings Over hundreds of years of development, mentoring has become a widely accepted and growing approach used for different purposes in different contexts and in a variety of organizational endeavors such as business, education, and healthcare (Bullard & Felder, 2003; Campbell & Campbell, 1997; Foster, 2001; Gibb, 1999; McNally, 1994; Shea, 2001). A number of studies have investigated different types of mentoring applications (one- to-one, group mentoring, team mentoring, etc.) in different settings and have provided useful insights about mentoring structure, the formation of relations between participants, individuals roles, mentoring processes, successes and failures, and other factors (Benard, 1992; Beyene, Anglin, Sanchez, & Ballou, 2002; Foster, 2001; Patton, Pagnano, Griffin, Dodds, Sheehy, Arnold, Henninger, Gallo, & James, 2005; Willbur, 1987). In spite of the fact that these studies were carried

out in wide-ranging contexts and mentoring structures in terms of purpose, age group, roles, and other factors, the common point that most of them agreed on is the effectiveness of the mentoring approach, the one-to-one approach in particular, in development of individuals in their professions and other areas of life (Kram & Isabella, 1985; Whitely, Daugherty, & Dreher, 1991). Although several reasons could be listed here that address reasons why the mentoring approach is so powerful, the most commonly -accepted reason cited in the literature is that mentoring structures are mostly established among small groups of people, two or three in most cases, within a real environment. Mentoring is, therefore, an effective way to identify a less-experienced persons needs in a more accurate and timely manner and to provide more individualized and direct assistance with little or no cost to that person. In education, one of the fields in which mentoring is often used (Jacobi, 1991), a wide variety of mentoring structures have been established in terms of structural type (formal or informal), expected outcomes, and participants roles in addressing different needs in educational systems (Campell & Campell, 1997; Jacobi, 1991). Among these applications, several structures are used commonly: an experienced teacher will mentor less experienced teachers, often new teachers (David, 2000; Holloway, 2001; McNally, 1994; Yost, 2002); teachers will mentor disadvantaged students so that they become part of the community (Benard, 1992); students mentor other students to achieve success in their academic tasks; and students mentor faculty members in an area of technology (Heuer, Duffrin & Faskowitz, 1997). Studies reported that most of these mentoring structures have been developed and used successfully (Franklin, Turner, Kariuki, & Duran, 2001; Jacobi, 1991). A closer examination of these mentoring structures in educational environments reveals that traditionally we almost always see a direct relationship between age and the roles of participants in most of the mentoring relationships, as discussed earlier. Older people (a teacher with many years of teaching experience, a higher-grade student with superior knowledge in some subject, or a senior faculty member with more professional experience) have found it natural in such structures to mentor younger people (a new teacher who needs assistance in classroom management and teaching, a younger student who needs help achieving development, and a new junior faculty member with less experience in organizational structure, project management, etc.) (Benard, 1992; Foster, 2001; Patton, Pagnano, Griffin, Dodds, Sheehy, Arnold, Henninger, Gallo, & James, 2005; Ramsey, 2000). However, because of the changing needs of society and expectations of educational systems, an explicit shift has been identified in recent mentoring-related publications in education. This shift is from a traditional mentoring view, in which an older person mentors the less experienced or younger person, toward more collaborative structures based on participants experiences on different topics that support both sides i mprovement through open communication channels. In short, this means both sides in a mentoring relationship regardless of age, have something to teach each other (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2000; Reigeluth & Garfinkle, 1994). For example, with the rapid diffusion of technology in almost all layers of daily life, the pressure on educators to use technologies for instructional purposes has become unavoidable (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Thus, the need for learning how to apply these technologies in both teaching and learning has been perceived as a necessity not only for new or less experienced teachers, but often also for teachers with many years of experience (Fulton, Glenn, & Valdez, 2003; Russell, Bebell, Dewyer, & OConnor, 2003). Considering limitations such as lack of funds, lack of professional development opportunities, or lack of qualified personnel in some schools, mentoring, especially the one- to-one type, has been strongly suggested by many as an effective approach in assisting teachers and teacher educators with their need for training in various technologies. Studies specifically focusing on this type of mentoring relationship, technology mentoring, clearly depict the shift as described here. The idea of using the power of the student/new teachers expertise through a one -to- one mentoring approach to help teacher education faculty address their need for technology training has been widely-accepted in higher education (Fulton, Glenn, & Valdez, 2003; Shoffner, Dias, & Thomas, 2001). Several institutions have adopted this approach and used it successfully for many years (Chuang, 2004). Most of this type of mentoring, usually called technology mentoring, has been developed between undergraduate or graduate students (mentors) and faculty members (mentees) based on the assumption that younger generations who grew up within the world of technology often have more advanced knowledge and experience with the latest technologies. More than a decade ago, the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at this Midwestern university adopted a mentoring approach, developed its structure, and has being using it successfully over the years to address the technology needs of teacher educators. The Structure of Faculty Technology Mentoring The faculty technology mentoring program in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction has been in place since 1991. The primary goal of the mentoring program is to help faculty members with their individual needs in integrating technology into their teaching and professional activities. The main structure of the project is organized around two visible components: a graduate level course, Technology in Teacher Education, open to masters and doctoral candidates, and weekly mentor-mentee (graduate student faculty member) meetings. Graduate students who register for the Technology in Teacher Education course are required to work with one or two faculty members either in the College of Human Sciences or in the students own college for about one ho ur each week during the semester as a field component of the three-credit course. Additionally, at the end of the semester, each student is required to write a publishable case-study paper about his or her mentoring experience. The general profile of registered students in this course shows that most of the students come from the College of

Human sciences; however, a number of graduate students studying in other fields such as agricultural education, foreign languages, and other social sciences also enroll. Each fall semester, several faculty members in the College of Human Sciences volunteer to participate in this project at the invitation of the course instructor. They provide brief descriptions of their technology needs including information about themselves such as their department and specific topic or topics they want to work on with a graduate student during the semester. The participating faculty members collective demographic profile is very broad in terms of age, professional interests, positions, teaching subjects, research areas, and level of expertise in information technologies. It is not unusual, for example, to see both a retiring professor in his last semester of teaching participate in the project to learn how to use the online course management system (WebCT), and a new faculty member in her first year in the college. Another aspect of the participating faculty profile at the college is that several professors have participated to the project multiple times. One professor, for example, does not hesitate to express her feelings of appreciation about technology mentoring resulting from her 14-year involvement as a mentee and her willingness to work on new technologies with a graduate student mentor. Defining Concepts in Faculty Technology Mentoring The structure of a mentoring relationship in this case, as given earlier, is mainly established between two persons: a graduate student and a faculty member. In this relationship, the graduate student is expected to take responsibility for helping the assigned faculty member with respect to his or her technological needs at any level and to address those needs and concerns in appropriate ways. Based on given discussions from the literature described in the previous sections and studies investigating th is issue, we use the term mentoring in this study to refer to a relationship formed (but not limited to) by two persons (a graduate student and a faculty member) and characterized as a process of exchanging knowledge, experiences, and expertise through open dialog that helps both participants to grow in academic, professional, and social aspects. Within this definition, we need to note that, contrary to the mentoring relationships used in a variety of fields in social science, the relationship between a graduate student and a faculty member in the present context actually produced some signals that differentiate technology mentoring from other traditional mentoring views. One person (the mentor) mainly carried the relationship and took on the heaviest responsibilities. Because both sides engaged in the technology-mentoring relationship in this specific context had different levels of knowledge and experiences on different subjects such as teaching, research, technology or leadership. Thus, both the graduate student and the faculty member had a chance to equally contribute to the relationship and to support each others development on various subjects of interest. Furthermore, because of this collaborative relationship between student and faculty member, we found that other members of the community contribute to and benefit from this relationship in either direct or indirect ways as well (Chuang, 2004). In terms of the nature of the relationship, several important aspects have been listed in individual case studies and research reports (Faculty Technology Mentoring, 2006). Among those findings, Chuang (2004) pointed out that one of the most important components of the technology mentoring relationship in this context is that the relationship is not established in a hierarchical manner. Accordingly, participating faculty members at the college were very well informed about their roles and aware of not abusing their positions of authority or any previous relationship with the graduate student mentor. A major professor of a mentor, for example, might voluntarily cede the leadership position to the mentor during the first mentoring meeting by saying Ok, Im ready to start working. You *graduate student and her advisee+ lead me and tell me now what to do. However, considering the major professors presumed knowledge and expertise in research, teaching, and technology, leaving the leadership role to the graduate student mentor doesnt necessarily mean that this particular faculty member has nothing to contribute to the mentors development. Collected data and artifacts over the fourteen years have show that graduate students participating in this project have been very appreciative with respect to faculty members contributions to their academic and professional achievements. Based on this fact, Klasen and Clutterbuck (2002) discussed the mentoring concepts and the nature of relationships in faculty technology-mentoring structures. In this study, as in previous ones, we assigned the term mentor to the graduate student as the more experienced person with respect to information technologies. Since both graduate student and faculty member have equal chances and capability to contribute to the mentoring relationship in which they are engaged, the term mentee as opposed to protg seemed to be more appropriate for a faculty member who needs individualized assistance on a technology element. In brief, we used the term mentor to refer to graduate students and the term mentee to refer to participating faculty members in this study. The Evaluation of Mentoring Relationships Mentoring has obviously emerged in the literature as one of the most popular professional development models, serving for the wide variety of purposes in various organizations (Jacobi, 1991; Kariuki, Franklin, & Duran, 2001; Kram & Isabella, 1985). Although the growing body of the literature on mentoring has reported a number of success stories of mentoring in different contexts, the literature also has posited that not all mentoring relationships are successful (Donaldson, Ensher, & Grant-Vallone, 2000; Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russel, 2000; Foster,2001; Myers & Humphreys, 1985). Because of diverse aspects of the various mentoring structures (Campbell & Campbell, 1997, 2000; Jacobi, 1991) such as formality or informality, variability of relationships between participants, knowledge and experience of participants, personality differences, differences in outcome expectation for individuals vis--vis organizations, and other factors, no study yet found in the literature describes a particular evaluation criteria that

can be used to determine whether or not any given mentoring relationship is successful from the individual as well as the organizational point of view . Some businesses, for example, in order to grow and compete, invest significant financial and human resources to establish formal mentoring structures for their new or less- experienced employees (Hansman, 2001). In the educational arena, schools often create formal mentoring programs between teachers and students who need personal or academic counseling, etc. In both these cases, it is important for program coordinators to seek some tangible evidence that demonstrates the level of effectiveness of the mentoring programs in terms of outcomes for their employees or students as well as for the organization itself. In spite of the recognition of a need for common ground for evaluation of various mentoring approaches, an extensive literature review carried out on a variety of mentoring approaches with respect to various environments did not reveal any solid evaluation framework other than identifying a few elements that could be used in the evaluation process depending on such variables as environment, structure, goals, etc. (Benard, 1992; Donaldson, Ensher, & Grant-Vallone, 2000). Despite the difficulty of finding descriptions of the desired evaluation framework in current mentoring literature (Gibb, 1994), Foster (2001) proposed using common themes described in mentoring studies to create a general framework for evaluation of mentoring applications in terms of their effectiveness on both individuals and organizations. Thus, based on the extensive literature review, the following themes have been found in studies in different fields, with most coming from the education field. The Structure of Mentoring Different versions of mentoring structure have been adopted by various fields (Campbell & Campbell, 1997) and categorized into two main groups: formal and informal mentoring establishments (Gibb, 1999; Hansman, 2001; Jacobi, 1991). Although most mentoring structures have been established informally without any support from organizational administration, the number of formal structures has increased and is expected to grow considerably in the future (Gibb, 1999; Hansman, 2001). Since formal and informal mentoring structures may be different in terms of their established goals, expected outcomes, ,roles of individuals, administrative support, cost, and other elements, investigation of the DavidPerkins 1. Theory of Value: What knowledge and skills are worthwhile learning? What are the goals of education? The goal of education is to develop "generative knowledge," knowledge that functions richly in peoples lives and helps them to understand and deal with their world. This generative knowledge serves people in their academic and non-academic lives, it empowers the individual and improves his life. Generative knowledge consists of three sub-goals: retention of knowledge, understanding of knowledge, and active use of knowledge. By not stopping with mere acquisition of knowledge Perkins declares that the learner is then pointed to action (5-6). The knowledge and skills that are worthwhile learning are those that are included in "generative topics." Generative topics meet the following standards: "centrality - the topic should be central to a subject matter or curriculum; accessibility - the topic should allow and invite teacher's and student's understanding performances rather than seeming sparse or arcane; richness - the topic should encourage a rich play of varied extrapolation and connection making." (92-93). Examples Perkins sited of generative topics include: evolution, nationalism and internationalism, problems of practical arithmetic, and allegory or fable. These topics have both depth and breath, and can be applied across the curriculum to many different subject matters. 2. Theory of Knowledge: What is knowledge? How is it different from belief? What is a mistake? A lie? Knowledge is not acquiring a series of facts but being able to utilize these facts in real life situations, to solve problems and better lives. He contrasts actual knowledge with "fragile knowledge", which can be missing (exposed to but can't remember), inert (it's there but you can't do anything with it, naive (simplistic, stereotypical, or wrong), or ritualistic (a pattern useful for schoolish task, not nothing more). Perkins expands the concept of knowledge even further in his discussion of "higher-order knowledge" which he claims is "about how ordinary subject-matter knowledge is organized and how we think and learn" (101). Often called "metacognitive knowledge", it is knowledge about how cognition works. I could not find belief, mistake, or lie addressed specifically in this resource. 3. Theory of human Nature: What is a human being? How does it differ from other species? What are the limits of human potential? In the book "Smart Schools," the author again does not address these questions specifically. The focus is placed on how to change our teaching and our schools to enable children to learn more meaningful information. He talks about the fallacy of the "ability counts most" model, and believes that effort is the "primary explanation for the successes and shortfalls of learning" (37). Perkins faults the American educational model in which ability is the organizer, for tracking students into channels, and dictating the pace as well as the limitations. 4. Theory of Learning: What is learning? How are skills and knowledge acquired?

The basis for Perkins theory of teaching and learning is "Theory One" which says "people learn much of what they have a reasonable opportunity and motivation to learn" (45). He talks about "naive theories" held by both educators and students, that "learning is just a matter of accumulating a large repertoire of facts and routines" (31). According to Perkins learning is a consequence of thinking. He emphasizes the role of thoughtfulness in the teaching learning process and says that "putting thinking at the center of all that happens is crucial" (3). He says that students learn by thinking through what they are learning about. "Learning is a consequence of thinking....far from thinking coming after knowledge, knowledge comes on the coattails of thinking. As we think about and with the context that we are learning, we truly learn it" (8). Rather than knowledge-centered, he believes schools should be thinking centered situations. 5. Theory of Transmission: Who is to teach? By what method? What will the curriculum be? Teachers should teach, and do so in such as way as to promote thoughtfulness. By using a language of thinking strategies, the teacher can improve problem solving, decision making, and causal reasoning (109). Using "Theory One," as the baseline, in order to teach effectively the following conditions must be met: clear information, thoughtful practice, informative feedback, and strong intrinsic or extrinsic motivation (45). "Good instruction involves monitoring student's evolving understandings, and their points of confusion, and uncertainty in order to clarify them" (46). The curriculum includes content formulated around generative topics, that incorporates the idea of the metacognition. The metacurriculum, higher-order knowledge, "is about how ordinary subject matter knowledge is organized and about how we think and learn" (101). It is infused into the subject matters making them richer, deeper, and more amplified. Building a meta curriculum involves: levels of understanding, languages of thinking, intellectual passions, integrative mental images, learning to learn, and teaching to transfer (104). Students can transfer knowledge provided the instruction sets up the conditions for transfer. The two broad categories for transfer are bridging and hugging. Bridging means "teaching the students to make connections between what they are studying and other areas"(126), those other areas include other subjects and out-of-school lives. Hugging by contrast is " keeping the instruction close to the very target performances one wants to cultivate"(126). 6. Theory of Society: What is society? What institutions are involved in the educational process? I did not find the issue of society directly addressed. What was stressed was the constant application of learning to the real-life of the child. The issue of application insists that the school be less contained by the boundaries of it's building and more engaged in society. Society is one that the students are actually living in or learning about. The theory itself demands greater emergence in rather than separation from in the process and institutions of learning. Perkins claims that an "ineffective education weighs a society down, sapping its potential and economic vitality"(17). 7. Theory of Opportunity: Who is to be educated? Who is to be schooled? Democratically based all are entitled to an education, an education that is for everyone. Thoughtful learning is "just as important for the slow learner as anyone else, honoring rather than demoralizing slow learners, motivating them more, and helping them to achieve more...the smart school can create a safe, protected atmosphere to help build the curiosity, confidence, and skills of at-risk students"(14-15). Perkins rejects the ability counts most theory, in favor a an effort centered model, where learning comes by increments and persistence. Rejecting the all or nothing concept, as well as IQ determinations and tracking, his vision of education is one of opportunity and potential for every student. 8. Theory of consensus: Why do people disagree? How is consensus achieved? Whose opinion takes precedence? These direct questions are not addressed here, however Perkins says that cognition is distributed physically and socially. Distributed social cognition utilizes the research which has shown that cooperative learning can boost student achievement. Learning about disagreements, how to solve problems, how to achieve consensus cannot be achieved without extensive exposure to group situations where sharing common workplace and resources creates a small social reality within the classroom. Specialization will develop and leaders will emerge, and methods for solving social problems will be explored and learned. _______________________________________________________________________